9 ms·

As a Twitter shareholder I would vote against this. Musk says there is tremendous financial potential in Twitter but then offers $54 a share, which is not even

As a Twitter shareholder I would vote against this. Musk says there is tremendous financial potential in Twitter but then offers $54 a share, which is not even 2x the IPO price. That’s not a “tremendous potential” premium. There is a lot of evidence that platforms which de-prioritize moderation have trouble attracting revenue and experience significant compliance costs. See: the sad story of Moot, who ran one of the most popular social websites in the world and ended up with absolutely nothing to show for it. This looks more like a hobby to me than a business decision. Hobbies are fine as long as they don’t distract from the job, like Bezos buying Washington Post (he is a hands-off owner who spends very little time on it). But Musk is in two high-risk positions with Tesla and SpaceX. He worked over last Thanksgiving and sent a rather dramatic email about it. So I would be concerned about his ability to multi-task. He has already tried to run three businesses at once and he had to use Tesla to bail himself out of Solar City’s troubles.

hackernewds 5y ago
This assumes Musk is serious about his offer. Recently he did the same with Doge _buys Dogecoin_ "TSLA will accept Dogecoin" TSLA does not accept Dogecoin. Musk sells Dogecoin for a profit "Jk"
jmull 5y ago
My first thought on hearing this was, "What a low-ball offer. This isn't really serious."
- polski-g 5y ago
  25% over current share is price quite typical.
  - JacobThreeThree 5y ago
    Yeah, the idea that if an offer is not twice the IPO price it's not a good offer, doesn't make much sense.
    - hackernewds 5y ago
      Right it's baseline off the current price. Things have changed since IPO (for the worse for Twitter)
RockyMcNuts 5y ago
probably just wants to get Benioff or someone else to step up, make a couple of billion, further buff his edgelord street cred.
qsi 5y ago
Why is the IPO price the relevant metric? In fact, I would argue that exactly because it's been such a poor investment since the IPO, the fact that he's willing to offer a premium over recent market prices is a positive. Then again, I don't own any Twitter, so my views are irrelevant in that sense.
- PennRobotics 5y ago
  One major point of going public is to give the first investors liquidity. The banks and funds that supported this financing event (the buyers at IPO) are the ones being pitched: Vanguard, Morgan Stanley, BlackRock, Fidelity, etc. They might have bought the dip but only after buying into the IPO. TWTR started trading 8.4 years ago at 45/share (after being priced at 26). SPY was priced at 180 and is today at 440. Gold was down near 1200 and is now at 1900. Twitter grew in value at 2.2%/yr before inflation while the S&P index grew 11%/yr. Factoring in the IPO pop (which screws the VCs), Twitter would have grown at 9.1% per year. (The banks also have strategies that earn them more at IPO, so they probably are earning slightly more than 10% per year on their investment.) In short, Twitter is not keeping up with the broader economy at Musk's price. You're telling the investment banks, mutual funds, and most-senior vested employees that their company has the same worth as a low-risk government bond or a bar of metal.
  - qsi 5y ago
    > In short, Twitter is not keeping up with the broader economy at Musk's price. You're telling the investment banks, mutual funds, and most-senior vested employees that their company has the same worth as a low-risk government bond or a bar of metal. Exactly! The stock has been a terrible investment since IPO, and Twitter management has done a terrible job of unlocking value. It's current management that has failed to keep up with the broader economy. Musk thinks he can do a lot better if he has full control. Musk's price is a reflection of how poorly current management has done; he is not trying to compensate you for future growth. If you think current management can drive the share price much higher, then you should not sell to Musk. If you think current management is just going to be more of the same, Musk is giving you a big premium over where the stock had been trading, and you should take his offer. If Musk thinks Twitter will be worth $400 in five years' time, then he can realize that value for himself. He'd be very foolish to offer you that price now.
basisword 5y ago
>> This looks more like a hobby to me than a business decision. Hobbies are fine as long as they don’t distract from the job If he’s taking the company private the future of the company should be irrelevant to you right? The only thing that matters is whether or not you think the price is fair. >> Musk says there is tremendous financial potential in Twitter but then offers $54 a share, which is not even 2x the IPO price. That’s not a “tremendous potential” premium. He believes the potential is predicated on taking it private and clearing house. The IPO price also seems irrelevant. Whether or not you think Twitter can exceed that price again is relevant. Given it was at ~$70 last year he seems to be coming in too low for me as I think Twitter can get back to that point relatively quickly.
- Dangeranger 5y ago
  It’s possible that the OP holds stock for reasons beyond the financial investment, and wants to see Twitter add value to society in some way. Telling someone what criteria they should use to make their own decisions is quite arrogant, and out of line. If you want to use the stock price as your sole metric for deciding on accepting an offer, that’s up to you.
  - basisword 5y ago
    OP mentioned being worried changes Musk implements would effect revenue opportunities. They also mentioned the offer was poor because it didn’t match up to the IPO price. I think my assumption that the OP cares about this as a financial investment is fair. The real arrogant move is jumping into a conversation to tell someone they are arrogant without any evidence to back it up.
  - cabbageicefruit 5y ago
    For starters, GP's comment is absolutely not out of line, as explained in their sibling comment to this. Second, a large amount of your comment history is just telling people how "out of line" their comments are. There is a downvote button for that. Stop spamming it. It is you who is out of line.
ceejayoz 5y ago
I’d presume he means tremendous potential if he’s allowed to take it over. “Gimme your stagnant site, at a premium, and I will fix it.” That said, I’d vote against, as well.
panick21_ 5y ago
> There is a lot of evidence that platforms which de-prioritize moderation have trouble attracting revenue and experience significant compliance costs. I think Musk would moderate bots more given his experience. But people less maybe. > use Tesla to bail himself out of Solar City’s troubles He didn't run Solar City I don't think.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > He didn't run Solar City I don't think. He was chairman, and his cousins were the founders. Who started the company on his suggestion.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    So he didn't run it.
- alphabettsy 5y ago
  > I think Musk would moderate bots more given his experience. But people less maybe. Maybe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31006124 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31006124
JackFr 5y ago
> See: the sad story of Moot, who ran one of the most popular social websites in the world and ended up with absolutely nothing to show for it. Normally “Really? I’ve never heard of it.” isn’t good evidence, but when you’re asserting that Moot was one of the most popular social websites in the world it does have some bearing.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  Moot is the nick name for the founder of 4chan.
  - Loughla 5y ago
    And the fact that a poster on a tech focused forum didn't even know who Moot is, is proof itself that he got nothing in the end. And it's really weird. I assumed Moot was mega famous with tech folks.
    - JackFr 5y ago
      Ok. Maybe it is me. But that is weird. I mean I don’t really think that my finger is on the pulse of the tech community but I’ve been on this site for the past 10 years.
      - nemothekid 5y ago
        4chan is 18 years old and moot stepped down 7 years ago. I can totally see younger engineers having no idea who he is.
        throwawayboise 5y ago
        I mean, I've heard of 4chan of course. Never visited there, but heard of it. Never heard of Moot before today. In tech 30+ years.
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        Well, most of 4chan is weird, so this fits ... (Nothing wrong with weirdness, though, up to a certain level of messed up)
jansen555 5y ago
sshine 5y ago
Some valid points here, some FUD. It might be a hobby decision, or it might be self-protection against censorship; I'd like to know. As an owner, he wouldn't have to be the person running the shop. Unlike Tesla and SpaceX, I'm sure Twitter can be managed by someone other than himself.
- Loughla 5y ago
  >Unlike Tesla and SpaceX, I'm sure Twitter can be managed by someone other than himself. Isn't past behavior the best indicator of future behavior?
  - gpm 5y ago
    It's an indicator, not always the best one though. Your car has probably started every time you tried for years, but if it's suddenly -50c it's a very good bet that it won't this time. In this case it's pretty clear that Musk doesn't have the bandwidth to run another company in the same way as he runs Tesla and SpaceX. You can reach that conclusion any number of ways, counting the number of hours he (claims to/appears to) put in, listening to his own statements on the matter - where he has repeatedly outright said this, observing his relatively hand-off approach to his more recent ventures like neural-link or the boring company. It seems unlikely that his behavior at Tesla or SpaceX is about to change significantly, so it seems unlikely that he'll try and take as active a roll at twitter.
- rwmj 5y ago
  > it might be self-protection against censorship I think basic web hosting would be a bit cheaper.
cloutchaser 5y ago
You are implying that advertisers would boycott a free speech platform, and this might be true for some advertisers, when Facebook was boycotted by some activist businesses it didn't dent their bottom line. Also - Twitter is more of a networking and influence tool in my opinion for "important people". These people are MUCH more likely to pay for Twitter, it's not like facebook where 99% of people would never pay for it. Which I think is what Musk was hinting at with blue badges for $2. If he does that, boycotting advertisers will matter much less.
- XorNot 5y ago
  How many "important people" do you think exist on Twitter? It's a few thousand, maybe tens of thousands at most. So that revenue is worth, what, $50,000 a year?
  - kbelder 5y ago
    How many people on twitter think they're important? That's the more pertinent question.
- nemothekid 5y ago
  Advertisers didn’t boycott Facebook because Facebook ads are a money making machine. They demonstrably work because of the depth and breadth of Facebook’s data targeting. You can’t compare it to Twitter; advertisers may be more willing to dump Twitter as a platform as it isn’t as valuable.
poisonarena 5y ago
>Moot, who ran one of the most popular social websites in the world and ended up with absolutely nothing to show for it. 4chan? not really a 'social media' website. I think he did a good thing making it and we need more spaces like this in a more restrictive internet space
- ryeights 5y ago
  “Social media” in the traditional sense? Maybe not. But social website? Absolutely!
cainxinth 5y ago
> Musk says there is tremendous financial potential in Twitter but then offers $54 a share, which is not even 2x the IPO price. He means tremendous financial potential for him.
- robjan 5y ago
  He means tremendous financial potential under his leadership.
  - carnitine 5y ago
    For him though, obviously. He is attempting to take the company private.
  - cainxinth 5y ago
    That’s what he’s selling.
- Geonode 5y ago
  How so when Twitter barely makes any money, and he's got all he could need?
  - philosopher1234 5y ago
    After fighting to accumulate $240B and becoming the worlds most wealthy man, Elon has decided, hey, isn’t that enough? I should chill
    - Geonode 5y ago
      No, he thought, hey, I'll fix cars, and space, and solar. And that's not going the worst it could go, so maybe I can fix Twitter. He's not doing things for profit.
wdn 5y ago
If you are a TWTR shareholder, then you should vote for this deal. Just open a chart and see what a disaster TWTR stock is since transitioned into the Biden administration. The market (institution shareholders) is not stupid. The lower price is how the free market punish TWTR for their actions. They have lost a lot of their users due to many of their limited free speech and work with government actions.
- jmull 5y ago
  > They have lost a lot of their users due to many of their limited free speech and work with government actions. I thought people were mad at Twitter for resisting the government, not working with it -- when they were pushing back against the president of the US.
  - noir_lord 5y ago
    I'm not sure I'd expect coherence from anyone who has a problem with Trump getting banned from Twitter. The biggest problem twitter had there was that they had rules and then certain users with such a large following that they where unwilling to enforce them. It took a literal insurrection on the capitol to do it. I don't have a solution, moderation is inherently a problem for that case.
- basisword 5y ago
  It's absolutely nothing to do with Biden. TWTR start sliding in October, 10 months after he took office. It's currently the same price as late 2020. It's almost like there is a war, another wave in the pandemic, and sudden inflation and those things are effecting the markets overall.
  - zwily 5y ago
    Twitter has underperformed the market overall.
  - bushbaba 5y ago
    Trump brought a lot of attention to twitter.
moralsupply 5y ago
[dead]
sensanaty 5y ago
moot made 4chan and ran it off servers in his basement because he was inspired by Futaba channel and 2chan, and he wanted to create an English-oriented forum to discuss anime with others in an anonymous fashion. I wouldn't say he got nothing to show for it, considering his goal never was financial gain or anything of the sort.
- gambiting 5y ago
  Also, 4chan still exists and is relatively popular in some communities. That is something, to some people that's worth more than money.
bambax 5y ago
We're not sure he really wants to buy Twitter. This could simply be a stunt. I don't think he works too much; on the contrary, I think he's bored.
loceng 5y ago
You're not focusing on foundational principles - you're looking at current status quo surface level/shallow consequences of decisions. E.g. Low moderation making difficulty attracting revenue is because that's based on an ad revenue based model. Tesla and SpaceX aren't high risk positions - both have been proven for years now. You're concerned about his ability to multi-task because he's successfully turned Tesla into the most valuable company in the world, and at the same time lead SpaceX to probably the most valuable private company in the world? I'd saw your analysis is at least a few degrees off. Did you consider what will happen to your current stock value if the BOD doesn't sell to Elon, and if Elon then sells off his shares and starts a competitor and moves himself and others follow? Do you think Twitter is anywhere near an upward trajectory that will provide you a better return than the relative stagnant value the stock has had for awhile now?
xhkkffbf 5y ago
If you think the premium isn't high enough, the best thing to do is borrow some money and launch your own bid. Go for it, I say!
throw123123123 5y ago
If this offer is rejected twitter stock will go -30/-50% so if your north start is prices this is as good as it gets.
- kvetching 5y ago
MrStonedOne 5y ago
qiskit 5y ago
> As a Twitter shareholder I would vote against this. Which is your right, but do you own nearly 10% of twitter like elon musk with the ability to buy up to nearly 15%? Unless you own big blocks of shares, your vote really doesn't matter. > Musk says there is tremendous financial potential in Twitter but then offers $54 a share, which is not even 2x the IPO price. Twitter IPO'd nearly 10 years ago. The IPO price really doesn't factor in today. Musk offered $54 and twtr is currently trading less than $47. It means that major investors don't value twtr higher than $54 and do not expect a bidding war. If twtr was trading above $54, then it would indicate that musk was undervaluing twtr and investors expect a bidding war. Also, the fact that it is trading so much below $54 indicates that many don't expect twtr to sell itself to musk. Regardless, it will be interesting what happens in the coming months.
tonguez 5y ago
“ See: the sad story of Moot, who ran one of the most popular social websites in the world and ended up with absolutely nothing to show for it.” when you say absolutely nothing you mean money. but millions of people have fond memories of what his site used to be. nobody would say that about facebook or twitter.
- Klonoar 5y ago
  …what even is this take? Plenty of people have positive memories of both Twitter and Facebook.

hackernewds 5y ago

This assumes Musk is serious about his offer. Recently he did the same with Doge _buys Dogecoin_ "TSLA will accept Dogecoin" TSLA does not accept Dogecoin. Musk sells Dogecoin for a profit "Jk"

jmull 5y ago

My first thought on hearing this was, "What a low-ball offer. This isn't really serious."

polski-g 5y ago
25% over current share is price quite typical.
- JacobThreeThree 5y ago
  Yeah, the idea that if an offer is not twice the IPO price it's not a good offer, doesn't make much sense.
  - hackernewds 5y ago
    Right it's baseline off the current price. Things have changed since IPO (for the worse for Twitter)

RockyMcNuts 5y ago

probably just wants to get Benioff or someone else to step up, make a couple of billion, further buff his edgelord street cred.

qsi 5y ago

Why is the IPO price the relevant metric? In fact, I would argue that exactly because it's been such a poor investment since the IPO, the fact that he's willing to offer a premium over recent market prices is a positive. Then again, I don't own any Twitter, so my views are irrelevant in that sense.

PennRobotics 5y ago
One major point of going public is to give the first investors liquidity. The banks and funds that supported this financing event (the buyers at IPO) are the ones being pitched: Vanguard, Morgan Stanley, BlackRock, Fidelity, etc. They might have bought the dip but only after buying into the IPO. TWTR started trading 8.4 years ago at 45/share (after being priced at 26). SPY was priced at 180 and is today at 440. Gold was down near 1200 and is now at 1900. Twitter grew in value at 2.2%/yr before inflation while the S&P index grew 11%/yr. Factoring in the IPO pop (which screws the VCs), Twitter would have grown at 9.1% per year. (The banks also have strategies that earn them more at IPO, so they probably are earning slightly more than 10% per year on their investment.) In short, Twitter is not keeping up with the broader economy at Musk's price. You're telling the investment banks, mutual funds, and most-senior vested employees that their company has the same worth as a low-risk government bond or a bar of metal.
- qsi 5y ago
  > In short, Twitter is not keeping up with the broader economy at Musk's price. You're telling the investment banks, mutual funds, and most-senior vested employees that their company has the same worth as a low-risk government bond or a bar of metal. Exactly! The stock has been a terrible investment since IPO, and Twitter management has done a terrible job of unlocking value. It's current management that has failed to keep up with the broader economy. Musk thinks he can do a lot better if he has full control. Musk's price is a reflection of how poorly current management has done; he is not trying to compensate you for future growth. If you think current management can drive the share price much higher, then you should not sell to Musk. If you think current management is just going to be more of the same, Musk is giving you a big premium over where the stock had been trading, and you should take his offer. If Musk thinks Twitter will be worth $400 in five years' time, then he can realize that value for himself. He'd be very foolish to offer you that price now.

basisword 5y ago

>> This looks more like a hobby to me than a business decision. Hobbies are fine as long as they don’t distract from the job If he’s taking the company private the future of the company should be irrelevant to you right? The only thing that matters is whether or not you think the price is fair. >> Musk says there is tremendous financial potential in Twitter but then offers $54 a share, which is not even 2x the IPO price. That’s not a “tremendous potential” premium. He believes the potential is predicated on taking it private and clearing house. The IPO price also seems irrelevant. Whether or not you think Twitter can exceed that price again is relevant. Given it was at ~$70 last year he seems to be coming in too low for me as I think Twitter can get back to that point relatively quickly.

Dangeranger 5y ago
It’s possible that the OP holds stock for reasons beyond the financial investment, and wants to see Twitter add value to society in some way. Telling someone what criteria they should use to make their own decisions is quite arrogant, and out of line. If you want to use the stock price as your sole metric for deciding on accepting an offer, that’s up to you.
- basisword 5y ago
  OP mentioned being worried changes Musk implements would effect revenue opportunities. They also mentioned the offer was poor because it didn’t match up to the IPO price. I think my assumption that the OP cares about this as a financial investment is fair. The real arrogant move is jumping into a conversation to tell someone they are arrogant without any evidence to back it up.
- cabbageicefruit 5y ago
  For starters, GP's comment is absolutely not out of line, as explained in their sibling comment to this. Second, a large amount of your comment history is just telling people how "out of line" their comments are. There is a downvote button for that. Stop spamming it. It is you who is out of line.

ceejayoz 5y ago

I’d presume he means tremendous potential if he’s allowed to take it over. “Gimme your stagnant site, at a premium, and I will fix it.” That said, I’d vote against, as well.

panick21_ 5y ago

> There is a lot of evidence that platforms which de-prioritize moderation have trouble attracting revenue and experience significant compliance costs. I think Musk would moderate bots more given his experience. But people less maybe. > use Tesla to bail himself out of Solar City’s troubles He didn't run Solar City I don't think.

rootusrootus 5y ago
> He didn't run Solar City I don't think. He was chairman, and his cousins were the founders. Who started the company on his suggestion.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  So he didn't run it.
alphabettsy 5y ago
> I think Musk would moderate bots more given his experience. But people less maybe. Maybe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31006124 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31006124

JackFr 5y ago

> See: the sad story of Moot, who ran one of the most popular social websites in the world and ended up with absolutely nothing to show for it. Normally “Really? I’ve never heard of it.” isn’t good evidence, but when you’re asserting that Moot was one of the most popular social websites in the world it does have some bearing.

Gigachad 5y ago
Moot is the nick name for the founder of 4chan.
- Loughla 5y ago
  And the fact that a poster on a tech focused forum didn't even know who Moot is, is proof itself that he got nothing in the end. And it's really weird. I assumed Moot was mega famous with tech folks.
  - JackFr 5y ago
    Ok. Maybe it is me. But that is weird. I mean I don’t really think that my finger is on the pulse of the tech community but I’ve been on this site for the past 10 years.
    - nemothekid 5y ago
      4chan is 18 years old and moot stepped down 7 years ago. I can totally see younger engineers having no idea who he is.
      - throwawayboise 5y ago
        I mean, I've heard of 4chan of course. Never visited there, but heard of it. Never heard of Moot before today. In tech 30+ years.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      Well, most of 4chan is weird, so this fits ... (Nothing wrong with weirdness, though, up to a certain level of messed up)

jansen555 5y ago

sshine 5y ago

Some valid points here, some FUD. It might be a hobby decision, or it might be self-protection against censorship; I'd like to know. As an owner, he wouldn't have to be the person running the shop. Unlike Tesla and SpaceX, I'm sure Twitter can be managed by someone other than himself.

Loughla 5y ago
>Unlike Tesla and SpaceX, I'm sure Twitter can be managed by someone other than himself. Isn't past behavior the best indicator of future behavior?
- gpm 5y ago
  It's an indicator, not always the best one though. Your car has probably started every time you tried for years, but if it's suddenly -50c it's a very good bet that it won't this time. In this case it's pretty clear that Musk doesn't have the bandwidth to run another company in the same way as he runs Tesla and SpaceX. You can reach that conclusion any number of ways, counting the number of hours he (claims to/appears to) put in, listening to his own statements on the matter - where he has repeatedly outright said this, observing his relatively hand-off approach to his more recent ventures like neural-link or the boring company. It seems unlikely that his behavior at Tesla or SpaceX is about to change significantly, so it seems unlikely that he'll try and take as active a roll at twitter.
rwmj 5y ago
> it might be self-protection against censorship I think basic web hosting would be a bit cheaper.

cloutchaser 5y ago

You are implying that advertisers would boycott a free speech platform, and this might be true for some advertisers, when Facebook was boycotted by some activist businesses it didn't dent their bottom line. Also - Twitter is more of a networking and influence tool in my opinion for "important people". These people are MUCH more likely to pay for Twitter, it's not like facebook where 99% of people would never pay for it. Which I think is what Musk was hinting at with blue badges for $2. If he does that, boycotting advertisers will matter much less.

XorNot 5y ago
How many "important people" do you think exist on Twitter? It's a few thousand, maybe tens of thousands at most. So that revenue is worth, what, $50,000 a year?
- kbelder 5y ago
  How many people on twitter think they're important? That's the more pertinent question.
nemothekid 5y ago
Advertisers didn’t boycott Facebook because Facebook ads are a money making machine. They demonstrably work because of the depth and breadth of Facebook’s data targeting. You can’t compare it to Twitter; advertisers may be more willing to dump Twitter as a platform as it isn’t as valuable.

poisonarena 5y ago

>Moot, who ran one of the most popular social websites in the world and ended up with absolutely nothing to show for it. 4chan? not really a 'social media' website. I think he did a good thing making it and we need more spaces like this in a more restrictive internet space

ryeights 5y ago
“Social media” in the traditional sense? Maybe not. But social website? Absolutely!

cainxinth 5y ago

> Musk says there is tremendous financial potential in Twitter but then offers $54 a share, which is not even 2x the IPO price. He means tremendous financial potential for him.

robjan 5y ago
He means tremendous financial potential under his leadership.
- carnitine 5y ago
  For him though, obviously. He is attempting to take the company private.
- cainxinth 5y ago
  That’s what he’s selling.
Geonode 5y ago
How so when Twitter barely makes any money, and he's got all he could need?
- philosopher1234 5y ago
  After fighting to accumulate $240B and becoming the worlds most wealthy man, Elon has decided, hey, isn’t that enough? I should chill
  - Geonode 5y ago
    No, he thought, hey, I'll fix cars, and space, and solar. And that's not going the worst it could go, so maybe I can fix Twitter. He's not doing things for profit.

wdn 5y ago

If you are a TWTR shareholder, then you should vote for this deal. Just open a chart and see what a disaster TWTR stock is since transitioned into the Biden administration. The market (institution shareholders) is not stupid. The lower price is how the free market punish TWTR for their actions. They have lost a lot of their users due to many of their limited free speech and work with government actions.

jmull 5y ago
> They have lost a lot of their users due to many of their limited free speech and work with government actions. I thought people were mad at Twitter for resisting the government, not working with it -- when they were pushing back against the president of the US.
- noir_lord 5y ago
  I'm not sure I'd expect coherence from anyone who has a problem with Trump getting banned from Twitter. The biggest problem twitter had there was that they had rules and then certain users with such a large following that they where unwilling to enforce them. It took a literal insurrection on the capitol to do it. I don't have a solution, moderation is inherently a problem for that case.
basisword 5y ago
It's absolutely nothing to do with Biden. TWTR start sliding in October, 10 months after he took office. It's currently the same price as late 2020. It's almost like there is a war, another wave in the pandemic, and sudden inflation and those things are effecting the markets overall.
- zwily 5y ago
  Twitter has underperformed the market overall.
- bushbaba 5y ago
  Trump brought a lot of attention to twitter.

moralsupply 5y ago

[dead]

sensanaty 5y ago

moot made 4chan and ran it off servers in his basement because he was inspired by Futaba channel and 2chan, and he wanted to create an English-oriented forum to discuss anime with others in an anonymous fashion. I wouldn't say he got nothing to show for it, considering his goal never was financial gain or anything of the sort.

gambiting 5y ago
Also, 4chan still exists and is relatively popular in some communities. That is something, to some people that's worth more than money.

bambax 5y ago

We're not sure he really wants to buy Twitter. This could simply be a stunt. I don't think he works too much; on the contrary, I think he's bored.

loceng 5y ago

You're not focusing on foundational principles - you're looking at current status quo surface level/shallow consequences of decisions. E.g. Low moderation making difficulty attracting revenue is because that's based on an ad revenue based model. Tesla and SpaceX aren't high risk positions - both have been proven for years now. You're concerned about his ability to multi-task because he's successfully turned Tesla into the most valuable company in the world, and at the same time lead SpaceX to probably the most valuable private company in the world? I'd saw your analysis is at least a few degrees off. Did you consider what will happen to your current stock value if the BOD doesn't sell to Elon, and if Elon then sells off his shares and starts a competitor and moves himself and others follow? Do you think Twitter is anywhere near an upward trajectory that will provide you a better return than the relative stagnant value the stock has had for awhile now?

xhkkffbf 5y ago

If you think the premium isn't high enough, the best thing to do is borrow some money and launch your own bid. Go for it, I say!

throw123123123 5y ago

If this offer is rejected twitter stock will go -30/-50% so if your north start is prices this is as good as it gets.

kvetching 5y ago

MrStonedOne 5y ago

qiskit 5y ago

> As a Twitter shareholder I would vote against this. Which is your right, but do you own nearly 10% of twitter like elon musk with the ability to buy up to nearly 15%? Unless you own big blocks of shares, your vote really doesn't matter. > Musk says there is tremendous financial potential in Twitter but then offers $54 a share, which is not even 2x the IPO price. Twitter IPO'd nearly 10 years ago. The IPO price really doesn't factor in today. Musk offered $54 and twtr is currently trading less than $47. It means that major investors don't value twtr higher than $54 and do not expect a bidding war. If twtr was trading above $54, then it would indicate that musk was undervaluing twtr and investors expect a bidding war. Also, the fact that it is trading so much below $54 indicates that many don't expect twtr to sell itself to musk. Regardless, it will be interesting what happens in the coming months.

tonguez 5y ago

“ See: the sad story of Moot, who ran one of the most popular social websites in the world and ended up with absolutely nothing to show for it.” when you say absolutely nothing you mean money. but millions of people have fond memories of what his site used to be. nobody would say that about facebook or twitter.

Klonoar 5y ago
…what even is this take? Plenty of people have positive memories of both Twitter and Facebook.